turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Liberating Atlantis
What's this, now? I hadn't heard. Sounds like it has to do with slavery, sure enough. Turtle Fan 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :I stopped by uchronia today. It actually only went up yesterday. :Since Spanish Atlantis is also is at issue, I suspect HT will go back to the anthology format for this volume, so he can address those two very big issues. Unless of course the Servile Insurrection actually begins in Spanish Atlantis, the US of Atlantis intervenes, then their slaves revolt, which ends in emancipation and annexation of the Spanish territories. :That would be a nice break from OTL parallels, actually. TR 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::Could be interesting but I've got a feeling we'll just get reference to the fact that Spanish Atlantis got absorbed somewhere along the line. ::One other possibility the title permits, not that I believe it's what we'll get, is that the novel is set in the twentieth century during some sort of analog to the world wars. Atlantis is occupied and the bad guys are poised to strike at Terranova, and some Radcliff or other leads the resistance behind the lines until the good guys beat the bad guys back and launch D-Day from Terranova's east coast. I don't expect such a story (nor do I want it) but it's conceivable. Turtle Fan 20:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :::It is conceivable. Certainly Atlantis' role in a World War analog has potential. :::But I rather doubt it. HT made much too much of slavery in OA and TUSA to just say "oh we resolved that. Now let's go kill some Nazis." Or whatever. TR 20:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Having a stop-off point halfway across the Atlantic would change WWII strategies a great deal, and now that I think of it I wouldn't mind delving on into that. But I agree the slavery story is what we'll get. I hope it is; part of Atlantis's charm for me is its antiquarian setting. It would lose that if it became just another WWII story--a setting HT has certainly done to death. :::::It occurs to me that there is another war, or series of wars really, that most historians agree now were in fact World Wars, that HT could embroil his Atlantis in while keeping the antiquarian setting. HT did hint that France is having problems, after all. And with its close setting, maybe Atlantis feels compelled to side with Napoleon more directly. Or maybe Spanish Atlantis just becomes Louisiana, and that's that. TR 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::Hmm, hadn't thought of that. That could be fun--But didn't you say once that in the short stories Atlantis is very isolationist? I suppose that could be the legacy of a negative experience in the Napoleonic Wars. Turtle Fan 16:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::It is, fiercely so. Certainly enough to make war on countries it feels is stepping on its sovereignty. Which was a factor in how we wound up in the War of 1812 with Britain. :::::::Just a thought anyway. I'd be most surprised (not to mention pleased) to see Atlantean troops turning the tide in Napoleon's favor at Waterloo. But HT probably won't be going that route. TR 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Ah, fierce isolationism. I'm more used to thinking of the "Not my country, not my problem" sort that leaves a country without allies and without any interest in going to war on anyone's behalf. Such countries get drawn into wars when they're invaded themselves, but Atlantis is small and doesn't have the wealth of resources Terranova does, and while its location is useful as a spot for trans-Atlantic ships to stop, do maintenence, buy fresh food, and let the kids out to use the bathroom, but it's not vitally important. Once Spanish Atlantis goes, no one will have any pressing reasons to violate its neutrality in its own territory, and if it's isolationist it's unlikely to have much in the way of overseas interests. Turtle Fan 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::If he's going back to the novella collection format, all sorts of possibilities open up, but I don't think so; I think OA was an experiment with whose results he wasn't thrilled, so he went back to the tried and true. It will be one full-length novel telling one story, and that story will be of the end of slavery in Atlantis. Perhaps with contemporary subplots woven in, but perhaps not; "New Hastings," "Avalon," "Noveau Redon," and United States of Atlantis have all been fairly monolithic, wouldn't you say? Turtle Fan 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :::::I would. In the case of USA, perhaps to some detriment. TR 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, full-length novels need subplots. You just can't sustain one point for that long, no matter how interesting it might be. And it's doubly criminal in USA's case because there were so many other stories going on behind the scenes that would have made for great reading in their own right. :::::::It leads me to think that HT hadn't set out to write a full-length, instead going down that road just prior to the actual writing. TR 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::That could be, but I remember USA being billed as a full-length novel from the beginning, last spring or summer. Now I don't know whether the book had been written by then, but if it had that left HT plenty of time to tweak it. ::::::::And it's not the only time he's written a single-POV novel that was very, even overly, narrow in focus. Far from it. Turtle Fan 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::You know, it's almost as though HT, knowing that we would see the obvious American Revolution parallels, decided that he could merely touch on major themes and know we'd catch the references and flesh out in our minds what he wanted to have happened. Yep, colonists are pissed about new taxes and trade restrictions. Yep, the Congress has after much deliberation declared independence. Yep, the French have agreed to come in as allies. Yep, a permanent federal government has been established. But any one of those things could have made for no less interesting a tale of getting there than the battle scenes did, and many even more so. ::::::So what color do you think the dustjacket will be? For some reason I've long pictured it in my mind's eye as being green. Turtle Fan 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::Had not given it much thought. Green would be pleasing to the eye. TR 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::These covers are at least more interesting than most Turtledove characters, if not more informative; I remember the map being inaccurate, though I don't remember the details, and on USA's cover the armies are arrayed in such a way that does not reflect the military situation at any point in the book. ::::::::I keep thinking of it as green but my head tells me it will be red. Partly because that would complete the set of primary colors, partly because it will give warning that the conflict over slavery is even more violent than the WfI. Turtle Fan 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::red it looks better among the three books than a gold, blue and green. Jelay14 04:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Red, blue, yellow, and back around to red was the scheme for SA. Red, blue and black for AE. Green, red, blue and black for Worldwar. Any others I can think of offhand had covers that were a bit too busy to be boiled down to one main color. ::::::::I would prefer red to green when looking at the trilogy lined up on a bookshelf. But whenever I think about LA (ugh, what an awful abbreviation that will be) the image of a green cover forms unbidden in my mind's eye. Turtle Fan 07:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Cover Copy Found this at amazon. :"Frederick Radcliff is a descendant of the family that founded Atlantis's :first settlement, and his grandfather Victor led the army against England to :win the nation's independence. But he is also a black slave, unable to prove :his lineage, and forced to labour on a cotton plantation in the southern :region of the country. Frederick feels the colour of his skin shouldn't keep :him from having the same freedoms his ancestors fought and died for. So he :becomes the leader of a revolutionary army of slaves determined to free all :of his brethren across Atlantis..." So, yes, HT seems to be stepping back from the ACW analog. TR 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :Sounds exciting. It will be at roughly the same point in time, however. Not that that bothers me, though it is still, strictly speaking, an instance of parallelism. ::Not necessarily. It could be earlier (I doubt it, but let's entertain possibilities). Assuming that Nicholas was indeed born 1777-78, then he could conceivably have had a child sometime in the late 1790s. That child could then have produced Frederick as early as the 1820s, who then could have rebelled anytime between 1844 (because the Audubon story was set in 1843) and the 1860s. Just pondering. We'll know with the publication. TR 23:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :::They said grandson, not great-grandson. Yet I've got the feeling Nick will sire his son and Frederick his revolution when each man is a mature adult. So somewhere in the mid-nineteenth century. :::Good point about the Audobon date. Maybe HT will forget about that and set the rebellion earlier. More likely he'll just continue to refuse to give us dates. In retrospect, I find it strange that he was so meticulous in dating the "New Hastings" story, and has just been dropping little clues ever since. Turtle Fan 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :Without the Radcliffe connection, Nick was still a quadroon. Assuming that these things work the same as in OTL, it wasn't nearly as advantageous to be a male quadroon as it was to be a female--assuming you're considering sex slavery an advantage over the hard labor of regular slavery--but it could still save him from field work. And if Nick wasn't a field hand, the son shouldn't be, either; he should be used to running in circles of slave-royalty, even if the presence of Amerinds alongside Africans erodes the advantages of light skin. :Hmm, I wonder what sort of taboos if any there are in the slave huts for mixed marriages between the two groups. Such glimpses into their lives as we've seen--and I'm looking forward to seeing a whole lot more--suggest that they work closely together but keep to themselves socially. :By the way, if he can't prove his lineage (which shouldn't be hard, given that his grandmother's owner was so pround of the fact that he owned a Radcliff bastard), why do they tolerate him calling himself Frederick Radcliff? ::Could be the publisher just spelling out the obvious. TR 23:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :::Yes, these things do have a reputation for getting details wrong. " . . . prompting Featherston to use his latest weapon, the atomic bomb" indeed. I never did see whether they caught that on the final version of TG, though. Turtle Fan 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :Also, do we think the first name is a reference to Douglass? Turtle Fan 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) ::I suppose. Certainly the first names "Nat", "Gabriel" or "Denmark" might have been too obvious. TR 23:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :::"Cassius" would be an amusing inside joke for the benefit of longtime readers. Maybe he'll have a lieutenant by the name. :::Maybe I'm letting the Frederick Douglass thing influence my judgment before I even begin, but something tells me he'll be highly intelligent and politically shrewd as well as a rebel leader. Someone who can play a role in the leadership of the new society which successful completion of his rebellion would secure, again like Victor, and Henry, and even Edward himself. Turtle Fan 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Silver's review Is up: http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/liberating.html TR 02:30, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :Interesting. Very interesting. :1. Well it's a shame he's so shy about pointing out parallelism. Even I wouldn't call Victor Radcliff "a George Washington analog" and leave it at that. No wonder he tolerated "Jake Featherston is the TL-191 equivalent of Hitler" back when he ran this place. ::Eh. What can you do? TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Doesn't bother me too much. Also, I assume the review was intended for a general audience? Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :2. Why does Newton have only one name? When he said "Newton and Jeremiah Stafford," I initially assumed they were brothers. ::My money's on typo. TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::It appears more than once, though, doesn't it? Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::Yes, but he calls Stafford by his last name for the duration of the review. TR 16:36, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::::Hmm, look at that. Turtle Fan 17:23, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :2a. I'm torn on whether to feel disappointed that these are characters who have no connection to previous characters. One of the charms of the series for me has been connecting ancestors to descendants. I would have liked it if the Northern Consul were a Fenner or a Cawthorne and the Southern a Kersauzon or Higgins or du Guesclin. Or have them both be Radcliff(e)s and show how families are being torn apart. ::I bet at least one has some connection somewhere. TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Probably. :::I was also thinking that, with Atlantean society being so closed, immigration is low, so those who'd been on the semi-continent for a long time dominate the population numerically. And those who claim descent from the founding generation don't necessarily claim the highest levels thereof: Cawthorne's ancestor was a fletcher (though that made him hugely important when they threw out that nasty Warwick) and and Fenning's was a salter-cum-snack. Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :On the other hand, a part of me does recoil at the idea of a small pool of hereditary oligarchs ruling the nation down through the ages, and another part of me finds it improbable that a democratic country wouldn't produce any leaders without pedigrees. ::Pedigrees didn't seem that important in the stories. Hard to say how much of that is intentional or just that HT hadn't figured out the saga of the Radcliffes yet. TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) ::I haven't read either story, they really don't sound all that interesting to me. From what I've heard of them it sounds like HT didn't put much thought into developing the world in which they took place and is building that universe now. What doesn't fit, just doesn't fit. Kind of like when Star Trek introduces a new alien species and if you've already seen what they turn into you're like "What the hell?" Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Actually, I'd say HT had much of it figured out. (e.g. Avalon's streets are named for every single pirate who appears in the first novel. So there is a reference to Red Rodney. And absolutely nothing in the stories contradicts the novels.) They fit in seamlessly. ::::Do they? They seem to suggest a rather different culture. Granted, they're also set in a different generation. They may not contradict the Atlantean history that's been written since, but, other than the pirate street-names, do they really integrate it? ::::To date the action of the main story has preceded the shorts. If LA is set post-1843 (not that we're likely to get any dates, of course) that will be the real test. Turtle Fan 17:23, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::I'm just not sure if the Radcliffes were one of those things he had figured when he wrote Audubon in Atlantis. So I'm not sure if the relative absence of Radcliffes in the stories means something or not. TR 16:36, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :3. So the question of Frederick's status in the slave hierarchy has been spoiled for us. Good to know. I find it a bit disappointing that he "finds himself heading" (whatever that means) because he resents losing his cushy job and being put to work in the fields. Then again, it does usually work that way in real life. Most of the issues I feel strongly about intruded themselves into the realm of my personal experience at some point or other. ::See Jeremiah Gillen. Ideas Found In Multiple Turtledove Timelines will be expanding. TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Hmm, yes, I suppose it would. But Gillen didn't develop a passion for abolition based on his demotion, he just decided it sucked and he left town to get away from it. Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :I find it a little harder to believe that the field hands would accept his leadership. They'd no doubt resent him for coming from the big house and after a very short time living the way they always have--in a system he'd always tolerated before--declaring "Hey, this sucks! Follow me in rebellion!" Then again, if he inherited Radcliff political skills. . . . ::He probably did. We'll see. TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::I assume he's got the leadership qualities of the other Radcliff(e) protagonists. Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :4. Ugh, I'm already dreading the brutality of the scenes in the fields, his introduction to hard labor and the hazing the lifers will no doubt take malicious glee in subjecting him to. :5. Getting back to the consuls, I'm really looking forward to watching Newton agonize over whether to veto the use of federal forces to suppress the insurrection. I hope HT doesn't gloss over it. :6. Why do the consuls "find themselves" (there's that phrase again, as though the POVs will keep waking up after sleepwalking, or drink too much the night before and have no idea how they wound up where they are when they sober up) in the field against Victor? Isn't that what generals are for? Why does Atlantis keep putting civilians in charge of military operations? William Radcliff insisted on being named admiral when he contributed to the operation against the pirates even though he was going to have a ton of career naval officers under him. Marcus was the ranking Marine officer in that operation even though he had never worn a uniform in his life and didn't know what military discipline is. Victor Radcliff had experience when they put him in charge of the WfI, but not when he commanded the campaign in the Unnamed War, and after Braddock got whacked he wasn't even subordinate to Cornwallis. On the French side, same story. :But they were aristocrats, so if you believe in hereditary genius there might be that. What the hell do Newton and Stafford have? Well, since we know nothing about them at this point, I suppose it's always possible they're both Zachary Taylors. :7. I was amused by how Silver essentially said "There's Evidence! that Turtledove will continue the Atlantis series after this book ends!" After all, we haven't had a Josephe Patricke Kennedye Juniore analog yet. But there's nothing wrong with wanting more of an enjoyable story, especially since it's just about the only really good story HT's writing these days. I'd be a lot more excited about Atlantis 4.0 than I will about "Hitler's War II: Half of Us Do the Same Thing and the Other Half Spend the Whole Time Taking Naps." Turtle Fan 03:52, September 28, 2009 (UTC) ::Silver often ends his reviews of final books on a "this is the official last one, but there's always room for more." I'd rather see more Atlantis, too, but then again, if HT takes a break from it while he's still enjoying it as opposed to just extending the series- what-the-hell, chances of future volumes maintaining the same entertainment value do increase. TR 14:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Maybe, maybe not. DttE and TG made me feel like as he sat down to write them he was saying "Shit, why did I let them talk me into signing such a long contract?" Things rebounded a bit in IatD but it still wasn't up to the level of the early 191 books, which he clearly enjoyed writing. The second half of Derlavai, same story. :::On the other hand, taking a break while he enjoyed it and coming back as a labor of love is what he did for HB, and that book was dumb. Seeing what happens when humans are more advanced than Lizards was interesting; so were the little snippets of life on Home, though they wanted for depth, and some of them were stupid; and it was nice to see my old friend Atvar, the most sympathetic "villain" I've ever come across, one last time. I enjoyed the nostalgia of that. But in every other way, it was a silly story. I could tell he was enjoying it, unlike, say, The Grapple, but it just didn't have the grandeur and wonder of the rest of the series. It felt more like he was writing an extended "The Road Not Taken." Turtle Fan 15:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC) Another review Slightly more detailed. Still no idea if Newton has a first name or not. TR 16:15, October 22, 2009 (UTC) :Ah, he's pissed because he got split from his lady love. Whee. :The bit with the consuls, though, seems compelling. It sounds like it mixes and matches bits of the most profound debates of the Antebellum. Newton weighing the benefits of opposing slavery and preserving the union, like Lincoln, but in Lincoln's case the two could sort of run together, as both were served by aggressive prosecution of the war. Here they're diametrically opposed: what helps one goal hinders the other. I like that twist. On another note, I'm going from here over The Golden Shrine and it made me think: How's about categorizing novels by year? A few years would just barely reach three (can't think of any that would miss it altogether, maybe if we went back to the early 90s) and obviously there'd be no growth potential for anything but the current year, but I think it might be a useful thing to have. You could look at what projects HT was working on side by side and sort of trace the evolution of his style. Turtle Fan 19:23, October 22, 2009 (UTC) ::That sounds like a plan. I suggest we open it up to the stories as well, make it a "works by year". If nothing else, more articles per category. TR 19:32, October 22, 2009 (UTC) :::Yeah, I was thinking of that. So . . . Class of '09 is Liberating Atlantis, Hitler's War, The Golden Shrine, Give Me Back My Legions!, Reincarnations, "We Haven't Got There Yet," "But It Does Move," "The House That George Built," . . . Am I missing any? Turtle Fan 22:54, October 22, 2009 (UTC) :::"Getting Real"? TR 23:00, October 22, 2009 (UTC) This Week So this will be out this week--I'd almost forgotten. If Turtledove's near the end of his career this might be the last time I look forward to one of his books. I can't bring myself to get excited about W&E, and unless it's a huge improvement over HW I can't imagine giving a shit about Reggie Jackson Goes North, either. Turtle Fan 06:16, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :Does it come out this week? I was thinking a few hours earlier how I don't plan on buying LA, but since I'm such a drunk, money-spending Obama-voting Democrat I wouldn't be surprised if I did buy it. Jelay14 09:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::December 1. Tuesday. But last year B&N let me pick mine up on Black Friday. As I recall, you and/or TR got it even earlier. ::This one I'll buy. I like Atlantis. It's no Worldwar or early TL-191, but as of right now it looks like it will be HT's last glimmer of multi-novel glory. Certainly I'm not expecting much from The War That Prematurely Ejaculated. Turtle Fan 16:42, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::I remember now. It was me who got it early. I think the rest of you all had to wait like a week or two for your copies. Actually, now that I think about it I got it before Thanksgiving. Jelay14 04:15, November 27, 2009 (UTC) ::::I got mine on Black Friday. I think it was available for pickup the day before Thanksgiving but I didn't get a chance. I was leery of picking it up that day since the store that was holding it was attached to a mall but I got in and out without too much difficulty. Turtle Fan 16:25, November 27, 2009 (UTC) I got the call for this one. Suppose I'll pick it up later. Turtle Fan 23:42, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :Mine should be arriving the in the next couple of days.TR 23:58, November 30, 2009 (UTC) ::This might be the last time I give a shit about picking up a newly-released book. Turtle Fan 00:20, December 1, 2009 (UTC) I picked it up. I came home and set it aside because I'm not expecting to have much time to read it for a few weeks yet. Which makes me wonder why I was so eager to have it already. I guess so I can feel cool about having it before it's released officially. Also, I hate to keep harping on this point but I believe it might end up becoming the last time I actually want to read a new Turtledove novel enough to make its release into a mini-event. I treated myself to a few minutes in the cafe and read the first few pages. The first scene talks up some uneven floorboard. I assume our hero trips on this floorboard and all hell breaks loose. I hate when such insignificant details are emphasized in the recounting of historical watershed events. They're either distracting ("And the orders were wrapped around a packet of cigars!" Who cares?), misleading ("Rosa Parks was too tired to want to stand that day." Umm, no, she'd agreed to break that law intentionally so she could serve as a test case.) or flat-out bullshit ("The only reason the Confederate army was in Gettysburg was because they were looking for shoes." Dude--Fuck you.) Now future Atlantis will be subjected to some for-want-of-a-nail AH neophyte suggesting that if only this floorboard had been level Atlantean society would have continued to tolerate slavery indefinitely and during WWII Jake Radcliffeatherston would have been First Consul. Otherwise, the green cover that had me so excited all these months is a rather unappealingly pale shade. Seeing the three books lined up next to each other on my shelf, the low color value definitely makes it the odd man out, as does a cutesy-shaped bookplate, as opposed to the rectangular ones on the other two. And looking at the three of them together makes me feel conscious of my declining fortunes these last three winters. I was on top of the world while I read OA, I wasn't the very button on Fortune's cap while I read USA but wasn't the soles of her shoes either, and this year--Well I've been feeling rather blue lately. Oh, don't mind me. Thse musings are quite unimportant. Turtle Fan 02:09, December 1, 2009 (UTC) Newton's full name Ok, what is it? That has become the detail driving me the nuttiest since the reviews have been coming. TR 04:20, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :Leland Newton. Thanks for the reminder. I'm not yet reading the book in earnest, but I figured I might as well read the one chapter tonight. Had to skip ahead to Book Two before the consuls come in. :As I was flipping ahead I witnessed the beginnings of the insurrection. Something's bothering me. In Chapter One, as a bigwig house servant, Fred resents being enslaved, but he puts up with it, and in very grudging manner he suggests he doesn't have grievances beyond enslavement itself as so many others do. Then he gets sent to the fields as punishment for spilling the soup (a tiresome scene, by the way, though at least it ends quickly) and suddenly he's all like "This is intolerable!" Well, yes, being enslaved is intolerable, but what's made you realize it is that your gravy train got derailed? As long as you were getting goodies from the white folks you were prepared to put up with it indefinitely, but hard work has you throwing up barricades? Moreover, how could a lifelong fieldhand take him seriously? "Folks, slavery sucks but as long as it was just you sorry bastards out here while I got to sleep in the big house, it didn't really bother me any. But two days of doing--as punishment--what you've spent your whole lives doing without ever having done anything wrong to deserve it? That has me convinced: We need to rise up!!" Christ! Turtle Fan 06:52, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::Your description of events reminds me of one of the Sims stories. There a black house-slave is sent out to temporarily work in the fields when an epidemic incapacitates the sims field-hands. He is insulted and also mistreated by the overseer and so runs away. Rather than lead an insurrection, he becomes the equivalent of the Dred Scott decision but in reverse. ML4E 04:19, December 7, 2009 (UTC) ::::Yes, I thought I remembered a house servant being sent out to the fields as the catalyst for the end of slavery in that story as well. I must say, I believe that Turtledove has made himself the latest in a long, long line of writers of historical fiction who, for their own purposes, perpetuate a fairly inaccurate stereotype exaggerating the division of labor in antebellum America (err, Atlantis). Turtle Fan 05:03, December 7, 2009 (UTC) ::Toussaint L'ouverture was a carriage driver while a slave and was in fact a free man at the time of the Haitian Revolution. So stranger things have happened than HT's rather rapidfire rebellion and Fred's abrupt "wow, slavery sucks" position. Let's face it, people tend to be complacent with even mediocre situations as long as they can get by. It's when even their meager level of comfort is threatened do they act (if they do in fact act). TR 17:40, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::He kept grumbling about slavery before spilling the soup. He admitted he had it pretty good as slaves went, but he was anything but pleased--just not displeased enough to do shit about it. He kept referring to his situation as "not bad" instead of "good," and the Barfords as "not cruel," "not sadistic," "not too unreasonable." (I would have liked to see them look a bit more human. I'd like to have seen them get some credit for their redeeming virtues. However, I can understand that you're going to get a rather slanted view of someone if you talk to people whose lives they've ruined.) There's a lot of telling-not-showing us that Fred's not happy (HT sure likes to tell us rather than show us these days. My favorite example is Don Partridge--Turtledove never mentioned him without calling him a dumbass, but the only time we actually saw him do something dumb was in the one scene in which we were supposed to take him seriously.) The only time we see Clotilde mistreating Fred is when she makes him bring the food out of the kitchen himself--and his grievance is that he thinks that's beneath his station, that he should be able to make an underling do it. :::I'll have to read what happens to him when he first gets sent to the fields. Without having done so I have this image in my head of someone who has until now enjoyed a life of privilege compared to his new coworkers telling people who've made a lifetime out of what he's whining about after two days that he hates living like them and would rather revolt. What I can't imagine is why they'd listen to him instead of abusing him for being a soft, sissy house servant. The only explanation I can conceive of being offered is that they didn't realize just how much better things could be for them. And I'm definitely calling bullshit on that one! They've had contact with people of all races who live far more comfortable lives than they do. Turtle Fan 21:16, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::What did Partridge do that was dumb? Jelay14 03:58, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :::::Morrell (apparently a diplomat now, why not) gives him terms of surrender which allow him to declare the entire CSA defunct. Partridge signs it just to get the annoying chore out of the way, then says "Are we done here? I have to go back and run my country." Morrell reminds him that he JUST FUCKING SIGNED IT OUT OF EXISTENCE, and Partridge says "I did? Oh, shit! And here I didn't even realize." As I say, it's the one time we were supposed to take him seriously, and also the only time he was as dumb as Turtledove always insisted he was. Turtle Fan 05:41, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Finally have my copy So far, I am very pleased. The revolution does come about in a way that feels perfectly organic, even as it kicks off after a series of just providential events. :That's good. I'll have to sink my teeth into it later on, when I finally have some goddamned time on my hands. Turtle Fan 03:06, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Also, we have some more confirmation of dates. We know that a war happened in 1809 when Fred was a kid, and the telegraph is about 10 years old. In OTL, the telegraph was functional in the 1830s. TR 02:42, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :A war, you say? Was it taking over Spanish Atlantis? That seems to me about the only thing they have to fight a war over at that point in their history. Turtle Fan 03:06, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::It's an 1812 analog. Atlantis supports Terrnovan revolutions against England, England catches them. It's rather brief (like every other war in this timeline), Atlantis acquits itself ok, the Brits massacre a couple of towns, and then its over. Actually, Spanish Atlantis is still a mystery. And I am at page 71. TR 03:13, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :::Terranovan revolutions against England, you say? So something actually did come of Paine's little expedition. I was afraid he'd ended up like that ugly-ass Ruler woman Hamnet and his merry band allowed to "escape" so she could go back to the Rulers camp and start a feminist movement. Typical Turtledovean "Hey, one person saw one thing! A social movement is going to be born from this for sure!" Except in this case there was nothing. Not one fucking peep about her for the rest of that stupid-ass book (if you can even call it a "book!") In my review of TGS I suggested that before starting the Great Women's Rebellion she decided to research other HT bit-players who were turned into improbable revolutionaries, and that she died of old age waiting for HT to provide resolution with all her counterparts in the Second Great War. :::Anyway, no news on Spanish Atlantis, eh? What's the date of the last (latter, I suppose you'd say) story? 1880? Do we know for certain that the USA ever got not-Florida? Turtle Fan 04:15, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::Finally found a reference. It's in an off-handed way--Newton regrets that the govt. acquired Spanish Atlantis because it just added more slave states. Sounds like a peaceful Louisiana purchase style transfer. :::::And to think we thought there'd be enough for a whole story there. Oh well. :::::Sounds like it's having the political ramifications of the Mexican Cession. Atlantean geography being what it is, they don't seem to have the option of maintaining the delicate balance by admitting slave and free states side by side. Unless they want to try their hands at a little Terranovan imperialism, but that wouldn't work well for them, if they can get their towns massacred just trying to get some support to combatants on the big continent. Turtle Fan 17:26, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::Also another clue as to when this is set. We learn that Audubon died the year before. In OTL, Audubon died in 1851. If we follow the typical HT rule, then Aubudon probably died at the same time of the same cause: senility. So the novel arguably takes place in 1852. TR 17:00, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::Ooh, exciting! This actually helps us fill in a lot of gaps. It means Nouveau Redon fell in 1762. That in turn means the WfI didn't start till at least 1777, since Victor had not yet married Meg at the end of the Seven Years' War (actual mileage may vary) but by the WfI had found the time to marry her and father a son who died in infancy but would have been 14 had he lived when Vic went to Hanover at the beginning of USA. If the war went on for three years that means Nicholas was born in 1780. And if we can remember references to any living characters' ages, we can piece together dates of birth. What a find. :::::Unless that "ninety years" was rounding, just as I might, if pressed, say Harding was elected ninety years ago from today. But I think it's solid--You're more likely to round to 100 than 90 unless you're in a very narrow band around 90, because 100 is a nice round number and is very sexy. :::::Speaking of rounding, if the story is set in 1852, that means the 400 years was not a rounded figure--It's been 400 years on the nose since New Hastings was set up. Turtle Fan 17:26, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::I'll have to re-read that scene with the Radcliffe as Columbus rhyme. I didn't attach any importance to it of course because HT's been rounding all through the series, but that would make a poetic sense. TR 17:52, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::::The Radcliffe as Columbus rhyme? I was referring to the opening of NH, when the Basques and Bretons are fighting over what year it is. Radcliffe confirms Kersauzon's contention that it is 1452 and Kersauzon invites him to join them. They eat honker, get to talking about where it came from, and the rest is history. I love the irony of the fact that this series began with a dispute over what the exact date was. It seems that not at all long after everyone in this universe decided keeping track thereof wasn't worth the bother and gave up on it all together. Turtle Fan 19:03, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::I was referring to a scene early in LA, where Fred remembers the famous rhyme "In the Year 1452, Radcliffe sailed the ocean blue" and comments that it has been 400 years since that date. Since HT has been estimating throughout the series, I assumed we had another estimate. TR 20:36, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::(sigh) Wouldn't be Turtledove if he didn't pull shit like that at least once in a while. Turtle Fan 21:46, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Yay Us Reading through the running discussion we had of LA last year, I can't help but be impressed. We manage to predict a great deal of the book fairly accurately, between our guesses and complaints. True we had hints from the two reviews, but they weren't too spoiler-heavy, and what they did share was often vague. I guess we could try the same thing with W&E. If we really want to. . . . Turtle Fan 14:44, February 7, 2010 (UTC)